Forums

The Annual 4MBCPMBBT Tournament Topic

2. Would the phrase "conference ranking" make more sense than conference seedings? Well, on the margin it matters a bit. The other "mid-majors" (Upstate, Minny, Midwest, Michigan) have their tourney in slot 10 I think. So this is a bunch of good teams that aren't available to schedule that week. In our tourney, the 3rd seed conference (USA this season) doesn't play in our tourney in slot 10, so this is maybe some "disadvantage" to them vs. the top 2 seeds. Obvioiusly there are 300+ other teams they can schedule in slot 10, but let's face it, the pool of good teams is a lot slimmer in slot 10.

Also, I think it's worthwhile to have the top 2 seeds play one another in slot 10. It's simply an effort to have the conference rankings, which are based on the conf. RPI after the first 10 games last season, mean something. Essentially we're doing what you're suggesting, with the exception that Team 1, Team 2, and Team 3 are replaced with 1st seed, 2nd seed, and 3rd seed for the reasons I just described.

So my question above was an effort to possibly add more meaning to the tourney results. The conference who wins the most games would then be the top ranked conference for next season's tourney, as opposed to relying on the conference RPI rankings after the 10th game. But maybe most coaches prefer the conf. RPI after the 10th game instead of the tourney's results for seeding purposes. That's why I'm asking for feedback.

2. Would the phrase "conference ranking" make more sense than conference seedings? Well, on the margin it matters a bit. The other "mid-majors" (Upstate, Minny, Midwest, Michigan) have their tourney in slot 10 I think. So this is a bunch of good teams that aren't available to schedule that week. In our tourney, the 3rd seed conference (USA this season) doesn't play in our tourney in slot 10, so this is maybe some "disadvantage" to them vs. the top 2 seeds. Obvioiusly there are 300+ other teams they can schedule in slot 10, but let's face it, the pool of good teams is a lot slimmer in slot 10.

Also, I think it's worthwhile to have the top 2 seeds play one another in slot 10. It's simply an effort to have the conference rankings, which are based on the conf. RPI after the first 10 games last season, mean something. Essentially we're doing what you're suggesting, with the exception that Team 1, Team 2, and Team 3 are replaced with 1st seed, 2nd seed, and 3rd seed for the reasons I just described.

So my question above was an effort to possibly add more meaning to the tourney results. The conference who wins the most games would then be the top ranked conference for next season's tourney, as opposed to relying on the conference RPI rankings after the 10th game. But maybe most coaches prefer the conf. RPI after the 10th game instead of the tourney's results for seeding purposes. That's why I'm asking for feedback.

Gotcha - that makes sense. I prefer conf RPI over most games won, but could go either way.

I'll try to update this thread tomorrow with the initial results from the first of the 3 sets of matchups tonight (CCIW vs. USA).

Also for next season, I'm going to say we'll go with the tournament's results (i.e. tourney wins) from this season to rank the conferences. If there's a tie between conferences for number of wins, then we'll use conference RPI after the first 10 games as the tiebreaker. We didn't get too many opinions cast on this topic, and there really wasn't a consensus reached, but I think using the tourney results instead of conference RPI rank simply makes the tourney's results that much more meaningful, esp. to avoid having to schedule a NC game in slot 10 when all the other top 6 conferences have tournament games going on and aren't available for slot 10. In reality, I'd be willing to bet that in most seasons the order would turn out the same with either ranking method, but we'll formalize it like this to avoid any "disputes" down the road.

And the order we'll use to determine which conferences play one another and in which slot and on whose home court is the same as what we used this season:

Posted by jpmills3 on 12/4/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):I see you had a ? by Kean's game with PBAU. Yes, we had to schedule in Week 2 due to our spot being taken.
RE: switching the weeks we play each year. I recognize your "margins" argument about week 10 not having as many good opponents available, and that being the reason to shift the potential weeks we play in each season. However, I think it will go significantly cleaner with less issues and scheduling mishaps if we just knew that NJ doesn't schedule weeks 9 and 10 (saved for tourney), CCIW doesn't schedule 8 and 10 (saved for tourney), and USA South doesn't schedule 8 and 9 (Saved for tourney). People would just know to avoid scheduling those weeks. We don't seem to be getting the saving 3 weeks (8,9,10) quite yet.